You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

This may have changed more recently, but the last I checked (because as I said it was used on me to induce labor in my first pregnancy) Misoprostol is not FDA approved for OB/GYN use. It's an oral medication that is approved to treat peptic ulcers. It's very commonly used off-label as a vaginal suppository to induce labor in full-term pregnant women, and to induce abortion throughout pregnancy. Depending on dosage it can cause unnaturally strong uterine contractions that have commonly led to uterine rupture during labor. Granted, at 13 weeks gestation this woman's uterus probably wouldn't have been as taut and prone to rupture as that of a full-term pregnancy. But I don't think it could be ruled out- certainly her boyfriend couldn't have ruled it out.

If it's not illegal to force (at least) prescription drugs into someone else's system, it sure as hell should be.

No argument. Point is, it wasn't attempted murder (of the gf), which relies on the accused's intent to MURDER. You could argue for GBH (or whatever you call it over there).
I think you're getting hung-up on the wrong crime though.

Originally Posted by Ivy

Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

It is an absolute invasion of a person's rights and must be punished. That said, I'm not a big fan of not having control over the rest of my life if I choose to engage in intercourse with a woman, so I understand the craziness that could be evoked by having someone else make a decision that adversely affects your future.

Could be attempted murder if he was attempting to murder is expectant wife.

It is some kind of grevious or actual bodily harm too.

I dont think this should be another round about way to discuss abortion, although its likely it will happen anyway.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

I dont think this should be another round about way to discuss abortion, although its likely it will happen anyway.

Unfortunately, you are correct. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant, it seems everything revolves around the fetus, to the point that the woman becomes an afterthought. This is backwards. The crimes here are all against the woman: adminstering drugs without her consent (and without proper medical training); which by extension could be doing her significant bodily harm (assault by medicine, almost); and finally terminating her pregnancy without her consent. Just as no one should be able to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term, no one should be able to force someone to terminate it. Giving the fetus legal status in such a case is just a way for those who oppose reproductive autonomy to get their foot in the door for further restrictions on abortion.

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Well, the reason why those were considered crimes against humanity is because those were cases of forced abortions as a mean to genocide.

Absurd argument. It's not a crime if it's unrelated to genocide?

Originally Posted by Jonnyboy

I'm not a big fan of not having control over the rest of my life if I choose to engage in intercourse with a woman, so I understand the craziness that could be evoked by having someone else make a decision that adversely affects your future.

Fuck me. You can understand it??? Genuinely terrifying.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

Unfortunately, you are correct. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant, it seems everything revolves around the fetus, to the point that the woman becomes an afterthought. This is backwards. The crimes here are all against the woman: adminstering drugs without her consent (and without proper medical training); which by extension could be doing her significant bodily harm (assault by medicine, almost); and finally terminating her pregnancy without her consent. Just as no one should be able to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term, no one should be able to force someone to terminate it. Giving the fetus legal status in such a case is just a way for those who oppose reproductive autonomy to get their foot in the door for further restrictions on abortion.

That's not true and is not born out by the facts. The prosecution are going for four counts of attempted murder because it will carry the heaviest penalty. Pretty sure the woman herself believes her baby's life should be taken seriously too. It's only a foetus to you, to her, it's her (wanted) child!

Originally Posted by Ivy

Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

I didn't say it wasn't a crime (that varies and I don't know the specifics), I said it wasn't a crime against humanity, which has an international definition.

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum,[citation needed] "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."[1]